Template talk:Missionality

I have created this template so that we may flag new articles which don't meet our mission statements and give a clear and consistent reason for our objections. Comments? Improvements? --Bob^{bing up and down} 04:43, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Change Deletion to ACD? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 06:40, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Should the template include an "easy to check" category it adds? (Like "Possibly off-mission articles"?) IOW, what's the best way for us to keep an eye on articles that get tagged to play cleanup? human^{be in} 15:01, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

No one who uses it ever bother to "give a clear and consistent reason for our objections", they just do drive-bys. I question the need for it as it stands, since we do pretty well on an ad hoc basis on talk pages of suspect articles (I have similar thoughts about template:delete). I'm thinking of maybe changing it to something much mellower, like "This article may not seem in keeping with the RW mission statements (linked, not quoted), but it is a cherished part of our mainspace nonetheless." It would be used to explain to people why some seemingly "off mission" articles are in teh mainspace. Thoughts? human 15:58, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Rejig

I've attempted a rejig of the template. The first is a shorter, snappier version.

	Mission Statement Doubt!
	At least one RW editor doubts that this article furthers Rational Wiki's primary mission statements:

The authors and contributers to the article as well as all RationalWikians are invited to either edit the article so that it meets our mission statements or comment on the talk page.

The second is an expanded version.

	Mission Statement Doubt!
	At least one RW editor doubts that this article furthers Rational Wiki's primary mission statements:

Does the article:

1. Analyze and refute the anti-science movement, it's ideas or people?

2. Analyze and refute a crank ideas?

3. Explore authoritarianism and fundamentalism?

The authors and contributers to the article as well as all RationalWikians are invited to either edit the article so that it meets our mission statements or comment on the talk page.

NOTE: It is the responsibility of the editor who adds this template to explain why they did so. See here for other disputed articles that carry this template.

How did the experiment with expanding templates go, could be interesting to try? Also, when the community standards are implimented, the link should go there, not the mainpage. ArmondikoV^narchist 08:51, 26 January 2009 (EST)

This looks fucking horrible

And it's going to look even more horrible in wp:wp:vector. Please can we just replace it? -- Nx / talk 11:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The list

Is that necessary given that we are linking to the mission statement? - π 23:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

An editor believes that this template may not further our mission statements. The original author or others are invited to either edit the article so that it meets our mission statements or comment on the talk page.

See nicer. - π 23:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Pi. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually like the list - it makes the template seem "heftier." Blue (is useful) 00:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be even heftier if the list was set in 48 pt Fraktur. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Somethings like this (but without the manservant/ass-coveting)? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

An editor believes that this template may not further our mission statements: The original author or others are invited to either edit the article so that it meets our mission statements or comment on the talk page.

Not bad. Add the dancing Jesus from Homer Simpson's website and it's PERFECT. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Do we need this?

I din't see the point of this. If an article doesn't fit the mission it should be deleted. the only possible point of this template is for articles which could fit the mission, but somehow don't because of content issues - Michael Jackson, the various mathematics and biology articles, and the US state articles are an examples of this. Perhaps we should reword the template wording and the documentation to reflect this? Sophie^Wilder 20:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There are several options when an article is off-mission: make relevant to missions, merge into another page, move to essay/fun/userspace, or delete. A mission-tag isn't necessarily a call for deletion. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

it seems to me that Mission arguments and Delete arguments are the same - "what is to be done with this article?" Even when the initial proposal is to delete, the article can survive by moving or rewriting it. I know they are meant for different things but in practice there's a big overlap. Sophie^Wilder 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It's an overlap but not synonymous. When I tag an article, I want to be clear about whether I'm expressing doubts about it (as a mainspeak piece) or actually suggesting it be vaporised. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)